Radio Personality marks houses of sexual offenders in his neighborhood.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

http://www.wfla.com/story/23769426/r...xual-offenders

Now while I applaud his efforts, I do have to wonder about the unintended consequences behind his actions.

A good point is that in my area, there is a house near where my wife's Ex and her children live that is flagged by several offender tracking sites as being the home of a middle-aged, black, convicted pedophile.

Race was mentioned for a good reason.

The people who live at the house now are a white couple in their early thirties with a three-year old daughter.

You see, while it's easy to get a house on these lists...it's damn near impossible to get the house *off* of the lists.

The young couple eventually moved out of the house because of all the pressure and from losing battle after battle to convince people that they're not the registered sexual offender who lived there.

In fact, that particular offender happens to be listed as living at six (6) different houses at the same time.

Now since these are all rental properties, it's not just the young couple that is catching the flak. The offender in question has even moved out of the state and should no longer be on the radar for the area. But the rental property owners are banging their heads against the walls of these people running these sites because they can't keep people in these units from all the "OMG YER A SEXUAL DEVIANT!" backlash from this one person.

So while it's a good idea and all...I do have to wonder if it could cause more harm than good if the sites that the celeb got his information from is equally pigheaded about removing offenders when they move out of an area.

[ebonyknight]

The problem I have with this is the same problem I have with the death penalty. There are too many people on the sex offender list that common sense wouldn't label as pedophiles.

Unfortunately there are people who are added that are teens who (even if they are underage themselves) girlfriend's parents press charges. I wish the justices system was good enough to accurately label sex offenders, as well as murderers.

If there is undeniable proof (video of the deed, for example), then I have no problem with the death penalty or labeling someone as a pedophile. For me, at least, without absolute proof, it is better to err on the side of caution.

I am sure that these are exceptions, rather than the rule, but...

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -William Blackstone

In this case, that has happened, even if the principals aren't involved.

[kamn]

I... actually can't fathom why these lists exist.
Why is a sexual deviant/predator/offender required to register (or is forcibly registered) at some list somewhere, while murderers do not. For that matter, are rapists on these lists? I'd say not, even though they should be, but that's just cynical me.

Yes, everyone wants to protect the children, I get that. But the entire point of a justice system is to bring justice. To punish the guilty in a way and manner that would either compensate for the crime done, or to rehabilitate them so they don't do the crime again. If you've been sentenced to a term in prison, or even just monetary compensation, you are punished for a crime you did. Why must you suffer for your whole life for a single mistake, it simply doesn't seem right, when other people who murder and torture, get away with no abuse, provided they don't become famous. Especially when people who get added because they had a fling with a girl almost their age, perhaps a 3 year difference, and the parents not liking it.

As shown, these lists seem to incite anger, proliferate misery, not only for the guilty party, but anyone living with the guilty party or renting with them. God forbid one should marry them. Regardless of the fact that they might have changed, that they might have their urges under control. Regardless of the fact that human interaction would probably be a much better defense against further similar actions, than isolation would.

Just... why?!

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, to throw yet another spanner in the works... not all pedophiles are dangerous, and not all the ones who are dangerous have been caught. Also, there are plenty of people on the sex offender register who are not guilty of anything more than being caught urinating outside, knicker nicking or other minor offenses and who are not a danger to children. There are even pedophiles who manage to control their urges for their entire lives and never molest children. Just as there are sexual predators who aren't pedophiles, but abuse children due to the fact that a lot of rapes are due to a power motive and not sexual attraction, hence the large amount of rapes that occurr within the prison environment.

For example, while the neighbourhood mob is targeting Mr Jones at number thirteen, who was convicted of knicker stealing, Mr Brown at number eleven is secretly molesting his own children and therefore escapes detection. It's not a fact which the ignorant masses like to remember, but it is a fact that the vast majority of children abused or abducted have these crimes committed against them by either their own family members or people they know. Stranger abuse is in fact rarer than the media would have you believe.

[Panacea]

I... actually can't fathom why these lists exist.
Why is a sexual deviant/predator/offender required to register (or is forcibly registered) at some list somewhere, while murderers do not. For that matter, are rapists on these lists? I'd say not, even though they should be, but that's just cynical me.

Just... why?!

Who gets put on these lists depends greatly on the state you're in. Some states put everyone convicted of a sex offense on their list. Others restrict it to specific, serious sex offenses, particularly against children.

My former neighbor was a convicted child sex offender and on the list. The only reason we knew he was on the list was because my parents checked it out of curiosity and found him there. It was a sex offense against his own granddaughter. It wasn't molestation, but it did happen to be illegal (something to do with taking pictures of his naked granddaughter, and being naked with her himself). He was no danger to anyone else, but he was still on the list.

When he died, his kids rented the house to a couple who were also paid caregivers of his wife (the kids were estranged from both of them). When she died, the kids went to the sheriff to get the house off the list to sell it. It was a pain, by all accounts, but I'm glad they were able to do it because a couple of years later we had to sell Mom's house when she went into assisted living.

Some of the restrictions against minor sex offenders are so stringent, they can't get jobs and they end up homeless because either no one will rent to them, or any place they could stay is too close to a school, a church, or other place where kids gather . . . even if their crime had nothing to do with children.

Some of the laws are overly harsh and do nothing to protect children. And there's no getting off these lists, either: 20 years on a list with no violations, but you still can't get off it. It's a continuing situation for the offender.

Actual violence against children is one thing. But there has to be a point where these folks are allowed to live again.

[Andara Bledin]

Some people are on the lists because they had their willies exposed where a minor could see them. Not did but could.

The lists are utter and complete bullshit and so lacking in any form of reasonable quality control as to be absolutely harmful.

I want the property owners to start suing for defamation or libel. The fact that people move because of the backlash they get due to these inaccurate lists that the owners have made attempts to have removed should be open and shut as to standing.

[Greenday]

These lists are ridiculous. Too many people who shouldn't be on them (I don't care if some guy had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend while he was 18 or if he took a leak in some dark alley at 2am) and no effort is put into keeping them updated. I'm glad in NJ they seem to actually say what they did (My town has only one registered sex offender, he "engaged in sexual conduct with two girls, 5 and 7 so clearly he belongs on there) but how accurate is this information? Who updates it and checks to verify whether or not the person really lives there?

Going through my county as a whole, I didn't even find anyone that doesn't belong there. (Ok, after going through 50-something pages, I found ONE ambiguous. The guy was 20 and had sexual contact with a minor but no age was listed. She had to have been between 17-14 because it's specifically listed as a different crime if they are 13 or younger. So it COULD have been just doing stuff with a girl just a few years younger.)

[s_stabeler]

I have a few ideas that combined, would fix these lists.
1) limit the length of time people are on the lists if they don't commit further offences- if people are no longer a risk, then why keep them on the list?
2) limit who goes on the list- it is meant to let people know who may be a danger to their kids, correct? then only put people on where an actual minor is involved.
3) keep the lists up-to-date, in that if someone is no longer living somewhere, update the list.
4) add a quick summary of what they did (basically, in the case of indecent exposure, what about if it was due to forgetting to close a curtain? not really a sexual predator there)

[HYHYBT]

And, of course, even bringing up sensible changes like that in a legislature would get you unelected in a heartbeat; most people don't pay attention to the details, and "X introduced/voted for/whatever a bill that would let sex offenders near your children" is too easy for any opponent to resist.

[Ginger Tea]

4) add a quick summary of what they did (basically, in the case of indecent exposure, what about if it was due to forgetting to close a curtain? not really a sexual predator there)

I was thinking of posting about this a few hours ago, iir there was a thread here a few years back about some parent and child trespassing through someone's yard as a short cut, home owner was naked in the kitchen and could only be seen from the back garden where they were coming from, how why and when he was naked I don't recall, but I think they succeeded in prosecuting him for indecent exposure (to a minor) even though they had no right to be there in the first place.

[wolfie]

There are too many people on the sex offender list that common sense wouldn't label as pedophiles.

Also, there are plenty of people on the sex offender register who are not guilty of anything more than being caught urinating outside, knicker nicking or other minor offenses and who are not a danger to children.

Exactly - a conviction for "Indecent exposure within 200 yards of a school" could mean a flasher who exposed himself to kindergarten kids at recess, or someone stumbling home at 2 AM when the bars closed and taking a leak against a fencepost of a (deserted due to time of day) school. Who in their right mind would consider the drunk to be a threat to children?

[Aethian]

I was thinking of posting about this a few hours ago, iir there was a thread here a few years back about some parent and child trespassing through someone's yard as a short cut, home owner was naked in the kitchen and could only be seen from the back garden where they were coming from, how why and when he was naked I don't recall, but I think they succeeded in prosecuting him for indecent exposure (to a minor) even though they had no right to be there in the first place.

From what I understand the mother did get a lesser trespassing fine.

[bainsidhe]

While I understand the arguments being made, I'll admit that while house-hunting, I still checked crime reports and sex offender lists for the area before deciding to place an offer on my townhome.

Local lists here generally provide an explanation of someone's conviction, which I think is helpful. I never considered how out of date the address information might be.

[smileyeagle1021]

Exactly - a conviction for "Indecent exposure within 200 yards of a school" could mean a flasher who exposed himself to kindergarten kids at recess, or someone stumbling home at 2 AM when the bars closed and taking a leak against a fencepost of a (deserted due to time of day) school. Who in their right mind would consider the drunk to be a threat to children?

Even at a more basic level... he could have been drunk off his gord at 2 in the afternoon and flashed a group of kindergarteners heading out to go home... is he a danger to the community? Possibly, but more so because he needs treatment for his alcohol problems than because of being a sexual predator (well, in fairness I guess he could be a sexual predator as well, but it doesn't change the point that the greater danger is his lack of control while under the influence of alcohol and the inability to control when he is under the influence).

[Panacea]

Exactly - a conviction for "Indecent exposure within 200 yards of a school" could mean a flasher who exposed himself to kindergarten kids at recess, or someone stumbling home at 2 AM when the bars closed and taking a leak against a fencepost of a (deserted due to time of day) school. Who in their right mind would consider the drunk to be a threat to children?

Flashers are a different story. Many sexual predators against children begin by flashing at children. They then work their way up to actual molestation.

But those are pretty rare.

The drunk who takes a whizz on a wall or in a bush, OTOH, isn't sexually motivated and his judgement is impaired. Such a person shouldn't even be prosecuted for a sex crime, much less put on a list.